Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Carney on letter from Issa to Hillary: No Comment

White House press secretary Jay Carney was asked to respond to a four page letter sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton inquiring about claims that the State Department refused requests by the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi for more security. Carney would not comment.

White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment on an assertion by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that requests from diplomats in Libya for added security prior to the September 11, 2012 attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, were denied.

“I’m not going to get into a situation under review by the State Department and the FBI,” Carney said.

Earlier today, chairman of the committee Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the chair of the subcommittee on national security, homeland defense, and foreign operations, wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asserting that “multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 (2012) attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these requests by officials in Washington.”

The two congressmen also listed thirteen incidents leading up to the attack – ranging from I.E.D. and RPG attacks to a “posting on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page” publicizing early morning runs taken by the late Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security detail around Tripoli.

That October 2nd letter sent to Hillary Clinton by Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa and member Jason Chaffetz is quite damning if the accounts of 13 separate incidents or threats to the consulate in Benghazi are accurate. Ditto if the consulate requested additional security and did not receive it. In fact, these claims may be so damning that an Obama administration stonewall could very well make things worse, especially after nearly two years of stonewalling on Fast and Furious which, in many ways, is similar to what happened in Libya.

Both involved the issue of waivers and whether or not the State Department made the right call relative to those waivers, both involved the issue of guns, and both involved the deaths of U.S. Government officials. The primary difference seems to be that Fast and Furious put guns into the hands of bad guys and the State Department appears to have kept guns out of the hands of good guys.

Regarding the issue of waivers... CNN reported recently that the State Department issued a security waiver that prevented the Benghazi consulate from being secure. That waiver would have made it unnecessary for the consulate to have barriers, a safe room, or multiple layers of armed security.

Contrast that with this exchange between Rep. Connie Mack and Hillary Clinton at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in October of last year. Note the issue of a waiver that was required to be issued by the State Department in order for the Department of Justice to legally export weapons to Mexico (Fast and Furious). If Hillary said a waiver was issued, her Department would be on the hook for those weapons going to Mexico. If she said no waiver was issued, it would have implicated Holder's Justice Department.

It would appear that when it comes to the consulate in Benghazi and whether or not waivers were issued, Carney is choosing the same course of action that Hillary did last year in response to questions about Fast and Furious.